John 20:28

[Christian2]

John 20:24-29
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
Thomas Sees and Believes

24 But one of the Twelve, Thomas (called “Twin”), was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples kept telling him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “If I don’t see the mark of the nails in His hands, put my finger into the mark of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe!”

26 After eight days His disciples were indoors again, and Thomas was with them. Even though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them. He said, “Peace to you!”

27 Then He said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and observe My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Don’t be an unbeliever, but a believer.”

28 Thomas responded to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed.[a] Those who believe without seeing are blessed.”

Question: Was Jesus asking Thomas to believe He was resurrected from the dead? If so, then Thomas' reply -- "My Lord and my God" -- does not make sense.

[Jac3510]

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. The resurrection is not merely a historical fact to be believed. It is the proclamation of the identity of Jesus as the [Risen] Christ, the Son of God. He does not merely take part in the resurrection. He is the resurrection and the life (John 11:24-27). In that moment, Thomas realized that the resurrection promised in the OT had its fulfillment in Christ Himself, that He was the Son of God in a unique way. He was and is, therefore, God Himself.

In other words, one cannot affirm the biblical understanding of the resurrection of Christ (which is what John is doing in chapter 20) without affirming the Lordship and Deity of Christ. One could, in principle, affirm the mere historicity of the event, as if what happened to Jesus was the same thing as what happened to Lazarus in chapter 11. But the latter is not identical to the former, and Thomas' proclamation is the final and appropriate response in the acceptance of the biblical idea of the resurrection of Jesus.

[Christian2]

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. The resurrection is not merely a historical fact to be believed. It is the proclamation of the identity of Jesus as the [Risen] Christ, the Son of God. He does not merely take part in the resurrection. He is the resurrection and the life (John 11:24-27). In that moment, Thomas realized that the resurrection promised in the OT had its fulfillment in Christ Himself, that He was the Son of God in a unique way. He was and is, therefore, God Himself.

In other words, one cannot affirm the biblical understanding of the resurrection of Christ (which is what John is doing in chapter 20) without affirming the Lordship and Deity of Christ. One could, in principle, affirm the mere historicity of the event, as if what happened to Jesus was the same thing as what happened to Lazarus in chapter 11. But the latter is not identical to the former, and Thomas' proclamation is the final and appropriate response in the acceptance of the biblical idea of the resurrection of Jesus.

Thank you for your response.

Another question: I see some believing that Jesus was the Son of God, but do not believe He is the Word of God Incarnate. Some of my friends will cite

John 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples that are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name.

What's up with that, Jac?

[PaulSacramento]

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. The resurrection is not merely a historical fact to be believed. It is the proclamation of the identity of Jesus as the [Risen] Christ, the Son of God. He does not merely take part in the resurrection. He is the resurrection and the life (John 11:24-27). In that moment, Thomas realized that the resurrection promised in the OT had its fulfillment in Christ Himself, that He was the Son of God in a unique way. He was and is, therefore, God Himself.

In other words, one cannot affirm the biblical understanding of the resurrection of Christ (which is what John is doing in chapter 20) without affirming the Lordship and Deity of Christ. One could, in principle, affirm the mere historicity of the event, as if what happened to Jesus was the same thing as what happened to Lazarus in chapter 11. But the latter is not identical to the former, and Thomas' proclamation is the final and appropriate response in the acceptance of the biblical idea of the resurrection of Jesus.

Thank you for your response.

Another question: I see some believing that Jesus was the Son of God, but do not believe He is the Word of God Incarnate. Some of my friends will cite

John 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples that are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name.

What's up with that, Jac?

John is quite clear that Jesus is the word (Logos) of God Incarnate:
John 1:
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

To deny that Christ is the Incarnate Word of God is to deny the Gospel of John.

[Jac3510]

Paul's answer is exactly correct. To expand just a bit on the textual evidence, bear in mind that John 20:31 was written in the context of *gasp* the Book of John. The question must be, "For John, what does 'The Son of God' mean?" The answer to that question can only be found by an analysis of the Gospel of John, and from that, it is clear that "The Son of God" is God Incarnate. Thus, to believe that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" is to affirm His divinity. Note, in fact, the immediately preceding verses. Thomas declares that Jesus is God, and then John goes and says that he recorded that story so that people would believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

The logic is very clear, I think. For a far more extended discussion, I would refer you to a paper I wrote that deals heavily with John 20:31:

The Resurrection in the Gospel of John

Just like you mention people who cite John 20:31 to deny that you have to believe that Jesus is the Word Incarnate (since the verse doesn't seem to say that explicitly), there are people (amazingly) who use that verse to argue that you do not have to believe in the resurrection of Jesus to be saved. I take that argument apart in detail (14 pages, single spaced), and I think you will find the analysis relevant to both your most recent question and your OP.

[Christian2]

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. The resurrection is not merely a historical fact to be believed. It is the proclamation of the identity of Jesus as the [Risen] Christ, the Son of God. He does not merely take part in the resurrection. He is the resurrection and the life (John 11:24-27). In that moment, Thomas realized that the resurrection promised in the OT had its fulfillment in Christ Himself, that He was the Son of God in a unique way. He was and is, therefore, God Himself.

In other words, one cannot affirm the biblical understanding of the resurrection of Christ (which is what John is doing in chapter 20) without affirming the Lordship and Deity of Christ. One could, in principle, affirm the mere historicity of the event, as if what happened to Jesus was the same thing as what happened to Lazarus in chapter 11. But the latter is not identical to the former, and Thomas' proclamation is the final and appropriate response in the acceptance of the biblical idea of the resurrection of Jesus.

Thank you for your response.

Another question: I see some believing that Jesus was the Son of God, but do not believe He is the Word of God Incarnate. Some of my friends will cite

John 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples that are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name.

What's up with that, Jac?

John is quite clear that Jesus is the word (Logos) of God Incarnate:
John 1:
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

To deny that Christ is the Incarnate Word of God is to deny the Gospel of John.

Thank you.

[Christian2]

Paul's answer is exactly correct. To expand just a bit on the textual evidence, bear in mind that John 20:31 was written in the context of *gasp* the Book of John. The question must be, "For John, what does 'The Son of God' mean?" The answer to that question can only be found by an analysis of the Gospel of John, and from that, it is clear that "The Son of God" is God Incarnate. Thus, to believe that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" is to affirm His divinity. Note, in fact, the immediately preceding verses. Thomas declares that Jesus is God, and then John goes and says that he recorded that story so that people would believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

The logic is very clear, I think. For a far more extended discussion, I would refer you to a paper I wrote that deals heavily with John 20:31:

The Resurrection in the Gospel of John

Just like you mention people who cite John 20:31 to deny that you have to believe that Jesus is the Word Incarnate (since the verse doesn't seem to say that explicitly), there are people (amazingly) who use that verse to argue that you do not have to believe in the resurrection of Jesus to be saved. I take that argument apart in detail (14 pages, single spaced), and I think you will find the analysis relevant to both your most recent question and your OP.

Thank you, Jac. I have printed your paper and will read it over the next few days.

[PaulSacramento]

It is important to understand that the resurrection of Christ is not just "any old resurrection".
Christ resurrected Lazarus but no one flocked to Lazarus as Lord and Saviour.
When Christ said that when He was raised up He would reconcile all believers to Him, He meant that the resurrection is THE defining moment in history and to believe in the resurrection is to believe in Christ as Lord and saviour, far beyond the view of simply a Jewish Messiah BUT to be saviour of the whole world not just on ethnic group.
Jesus was raised by The Father AND raised Himself and while that may seem contradictory and confusing, it is important to realize that ALL the Father does, the Son does and the Son does NOTHING without the Father.
Another example of the perfect union of Father and Son and HS.

[Jac3510]

Jesus was raised by The Father AND raised Himself and while that may seem contradictory and confusing

Not if you adhere to divine simplicity.

Jesus raised Himself by virtue of His divine nature, not His human nature. On DS, we cannot say that the Father has a will, the Son has a will, and the Spirit has a will, and that those wills are in harmony with one another. Rather, we say that there is one divine will that is identical with each of the Persons. So the Father's will is the Son's will, not in a metaphorical sense in which They will the same thing, but in the substantial sense in which there is only one divine will that is each person.

On that view, then the Father's will (which is His nature--it is what He is) just is the Son's will (which is His nature--it is what He is). So when we say that the Son was raised in virtue of His divine nature, then when speaking of the divine nature, to say the Son raised Himself is identical to saying the Father raised Him, but when speaking of the Persons the statements are distinct.

Ah . . . just one more reason we should follow the original framers of the Trinity. They knew what they were talking about.

[PaulSacramento]

Jesus was raised by The Father AND raised Himself and while that may seem contradictory and confusing

Not if you adhere to divine simplicity.

Jesus raised Himself by virtue of His divine nature, not His human nature. On DS, we cannot say that the Father has a will, the Son has a will, and the Spirit has a will, and that those wills are in harmony with one another. Rather, we say that there is one divine will that is identical with each of the Persons. So the Father's will is the Son's will, not in a metaphorical sense in which They will the same thing, but in the substantial sense in which there is only one divine will that is each person.

On that view, then the Father's will (which is His nature--it is what He is) just is the Son's will (which is His nature--it is what He is). So when we say that the Son was raised in virtue of His divine nature, then when speaking of the divine nature, to say the Son raised Himself is identical to saying the Father raised Him, but when speaking of the Persons the statements are distinct.

Ah . . . just one more reason we should follow the original framers of the Trinity. They knew what they were talking about.

Totally agree.

[Christian2]

It is important to understand that the resurrection of Christ is not just "any old resurrection".
Christ resurrected Lazarus but no one flocked to Lazarus as Lord and Saviour.
When Christ said that when He was raised up He would reconcile all believers to Him, He meant that the resurrection is THE defining moment in history and to believe in the resurrection is to believe in Christ as Lord and saviour, far beyond the view of simply a Jewish Messiah BUT to be saviour of the whole world not just on ethnic group.
Jesus was raised by The Father AND raised Himself and while that may seem contradictory and confusing, it is important to realize that ALL the Father does, the Son does and the Son does NOTHING without the Father.
Another example of the perfect union of Father and Son and HS.

Who raised Jesus?

God did:

"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands...by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12)

"He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God." (1 Peter 1:20-21)

"And God both raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power." (1 Corinthians 6:14)

"Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it." (Acts 2:23-24)

"But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses." (Acts 3:14-15)

"But God raised Him from the dead. He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people. And we declare to you glad tidings -- that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus...And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: 'I will give you the sure mercies of David.'...For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; but He whom God raised up saw no corruption." (Acts 13:30-37)

"Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do His will..." (Hebrews 13:20-21)

Jesus did:

"Jesus answered and said to them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' Then the Jews said, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?' But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said." (John 2:19-22)

"Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father." (John 10:17-18)

The Holy Spirit did:

"But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." (Romans 8:11)

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit..." (1 Peter 3:18)

It was all three -- three in one, working together, -- raised the Messiah, Jesus.

[Kurieuo]

So how does your witnessing to Muslims go C2?

[Christian2]

So how does your witnessing to Muslims go C2?

I can only plant the seeds, Kurieuo. Whether they grow is up to the Holy Spirit.

Not to put myself in the class of the Christ and His disciples, they certainly had their disappointments too and they could do miracles and Jesus walked on water and I can't do either.

I read a book written by a Baptist pastor who spent 2 years in the Muslim country witnessing to Muslims and he didn't get one Muslim to accept Jesus Christ. One of his Muslim friends said: "You will die as a Christian and I will die as a Muslim." If a Pastor couldn't do it, I don't know why I thought I could.

But Jesus is still working and Muslims are coming to Christ; some through dreams and visions.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael ... to-christ/

[Kurieuo]

It'd be much more difficult online though, but there'd be many more neutral readers which is where you can make an impact.

And I'm sure you do make a difference. You'll get to see the fruition of some of that seed hopefully in the next life.

I went to a several day seminar by Daniel Scot who exposed the truth of Islam, but in a loving way. He turned to Christianity and was close to being killed for turning when he went back to his own country. So there is much motivation even if one does start to questions Islam, to remain Muslim and continue believing it especially when living in very Islamic countries.

[Christian2]

It'd be much more difficult online though, but there'd be many more neutral readers which is where you can make an impact.

And I'm sure you do make a difference. You'll get to see the fruition of some of that seed hopefully in the next life.

I went to a several day seminar by Daniel Scot who exposed the truth of Islam, but in a loving way. He turned to Christianity and was close to being killed for turning when he went back to his own country. So there is much motivation even if one does start to questions Islam, to remain Muslim and continue believing it especially when living in very Islamic countries.

There is no doubt that a Muslim who converts to Christianity and remains in a Muslim country will sometimes find his life in danger. In my experience I have seen Muslims threaten Christians on Christian discussion boards, as well as other boards. They are usually implicit death threats.

I copied on threat on a secular site that was explicit.

where r u living mister u will be soon killed take care of yourself

zeeshan nazir
Pakistan

Entering a Muslim country and witnessing to Muslims can be very dangerous.

Sunnis and Shias threaten and kill each other.

The key in witnessing to Muslims is to be gentle and show respect for the other person's faith. Even in that case someone may receive a death threat.